As settlers flocked to Colorado during the Gold Rush, they saw that water was essential to their survival and success. They laid the foundation for a complex system of water infrastructure and laws.
Today, this water-management system is under stress from growth in demand, drought and the specter of climate change. The system is bumping against its limits and needs to adapt.
What do we do?
Since the Gold Rush, the water system has been transformed several times. Water skirmishes led to the principle in our state constitution that use of water is a property right subject to appropriation.
By 1920, Denver was filing on West Slope water rights. During the Depression, new agencies and districts were organized, and the seeds of large inter-basin projects were planted.
The 1960s brought new reservoirs and laws about groundwater management, which became the basis for well shutdowns. The 1970s environmental years were followed by the Two Forks veto, which spurred a continuing hunt for water supplies for the metro area. Drought hit us hard in the new century.
So what comes next?
Through the years, the legal principle that water use is a property right has endured, even with its overlay of water quality and environmental laws. While the appropriation doctrine has advocates and critics, it is here to stay.
Also firm is the fact that we must provide water for Colorado in the future. We have hit the limits of new water, and must make choices of where water will be used to maximize benefits to all users.
Our system allocates water first to those with senior rights, and that choice can create hardship by leaving others without water during dry periods. Mix in the threats of deep drought, climate change, and political shifts and you have a recipe for serious water problems.
In the past, we solved water problems with new sources. Proposals for bold new projects are still intriguing. But even if new projects came on line today, we would still face shortages.
Water politics are more important now than ever.
We already have a series of studies about what to do. The Water Conservation Board’s Statewide Water Supply Initiative launched in 2003 has showed us about how much water will be needed. Other studies help us see how to manage it. For example, in 2007 the DU Strategic Issues Program recommended new partnerships and conceptual models for cooperation, along with measures to curtail water-wasting plants, conserve water and plan for drought.
The studies explain that institutional change is needed to go with engineering solutions.
But can we do it?
Creating meaningful change in water institutions is difficult and management by crisis is often the norm. It’s not that we don’t know where changes are needed; the problem is to find the public commitment and political will to make them. We have plenty of expert opinions. What we need to do is figure out how to make positive changes in spite of the stiff headwinds.
So, our water supplies seem near their limits with little new water available except to take water from agriculture. Studies project large increases in water demand to respond to population, economic growth and energy needs. We know that the old era of water development must give way to a more cooperative approach, in which demand management and efficiency are stressed and we prepare for climate change and other threats.
The hard part is to bring about the needed efficiency and cooperation.
The good news is that remarkable things are happening. Information technology enables us to track water better than in the past. At Colorado State University, for example, scientists have created excellent models for basin simulation and planning. State agencies have also developed models to explain how the state’s plumbing works. Businesses help water users promote water conservation and exchanges, even as they work within the water court system.
A dialogue has been created through the Interbasin Compact Process. Front Range and West Slope interests have also cooperated on some water-rights issues. State officials have detected signs of local cooperation where water users seem tired of conflict. In all cases, any cooperation won’t be due to mandates or wishful thinking but to mutual self-interest.
A third piece is needed to go with efficiency and cooperation: mechanisms to facilitate rather than impede access to water. These require ways to move water from places where it is available to places where it is needed so we can have a more workable water market. Unlike electric power, water is heavy and difficult to move, but we can have a market for water by moving it through paper exchanges, such as when an upstream user diverts a downstream user’s water rights or when water is run through another user’s lakes, pipes or canals.
The biggest need is institutional support. Colorado’s court-based system of water exchanges is not as flexible as a system where water can be moved flexibly within zones by administrative approvals. Fortunately, some water shares can be moved without court approval because they are based on new water from trans-mountain diversions. However, older rights based on historic use within a basin require court approval before they can be moved, even temporarily.
What do we need to do?
Because our water-rights system is here to stay, we need to promote, approve and fund water planning and new technology to promote efficiency in water use and management. But saying that is like preaching to the choir.
More important, and more difficult, is to create flexible and cost-effective ways to trade and move water.
Neil S. Grigg is a civil engineering professor at Colorado State University and the author of “Colorado’s Water: Science and Management, History and Politics.”
